Complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau about the Speeding. No one thinks big of you campaign

Transcription

1 111 Complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau about the Speeding. No one thinks big of you campaign Ian J. Faulks & Julia D. Irwin Department of Psychology, Macquarie University Abstract The television and outdoor advertising versions of the Little Pinky advertisements of the Speeding. No one thinks big of you campaign have been the subject of formal complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau, an industry self-regulatory body in Australia. The television component of the Little Pinky advertisement was the subject of complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau in 2007, and the outdoor advertising component of the Little Pinky advertisement was the subject of complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau in These complaints were not upheld. It appears that the internet component (the Hectic advertisement) and the cinema component (the Slowdown Notes advertisement) of the Speeding. No one thinks big of you campaign have not (as yet) been the subject of any formal complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau or to other oversight agencies or organisations. In Australia, complaints about advertising are managed through an industry self-regulatory process (Australian Association of National Advertisers, 2002; Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, 2004; Harker, 2003). The self-regulation system recognises that advertisers share a common interest in promoting consumer confidence in and respect for general standards of advertising. The Advertising Standards Bureau An Advertising Standards Bureau administers a national system of advertising selfregulation through the Advertising Standards Board and the Advertising Claims Board. The Advertising Standards Board provides a free public service of complaint resolution, providing determinations on complaints about most forms of advertising in relation to issues including the use of language, the discriminatory portrayal of people, concern for children, portrayals of violence, sex, sexuality and nudity, and health and safety. If the determination is not satisfactory to the original complainants or to advertisers, there is, since April 2008, recourse to an independent review process. The Independent Reviewer provides a channel through which complainants and advertisers can appeal decisions made by the Advertising Standards Board. The Advertising Claims Board provides a competitive complaint resolution service designed to determine complaints involving issues of truth, accuracy and legality of advertising on a user pays cost recovery basis.

2 112 The Advertising Standards Board The Advertising Standards Board is one way in which the advertising industry is seeking to maintain high standards in all forms of advertising. The Board is made up of members who were appointed on the basis of their involvement in the community and their professional expertise in other relevant areas. The intent is to include people from different walks of life with a diverse cross-section of views and skills, with regard to the representation of a broad range of age groups and to have gender-balance. Individual Board members do not represent any particular interest group and are individually and collectively clearly independent of the industry. Board appointments are made following a publicly advertised application and interview process, with the aim to ensure that the Board is a broad representation of the age, gender, cultural and geographic make-up of the Australian community. The Advertising Standards Board considers written complaints about advertisements in the mainstream media, using the Australian Association of National Advertisers Code of Ethics (2002, also known as the AANA Code of Ethics), the Australian Association of National Advertisers Code for Advertising & Marketing Communications to Children (xxxx, known as the AANA Children's Code), and the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries Voluntary Code of Practice for Motor Vehicle Advertising (xxxx, also known as the FCAI Voluntary Code) as the basis of its determinations. The Australian Association of National Advertisers is responsible for the development of the AANA Codes which are administered by the Board. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries is responsible for the FCAI Voluntary Code which is administered by the Board. The Board's role does not extend to issues about the legality or the truth and accuracy of advertising. It cannot deal with issues about public advocacy, nor with label directions. There is a dual process for complaints about alcohol advertising in Australia. Complains concerning the advertising of alcohol beverages are received by the Advertising Standards Bureau and are dealt with under two independent but parallel processes. The Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code (ABAC) Scheme, which is the code for alcohol advertising selfregulation, deals with a complaint about alcohol advertising through the Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code Complaints Panel. At the same time, and independently, the Advertising Standards Board also looks at complaints pertaining to alcohol advertising. Among other things, Advertising Standards Board considers advertisements which people find offensive on the basis of: discrimination (race, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability, political belief) violence language portrayal of sex, sexuality or nudity health and safety alarm or distress to children. Anyone can lodge a complaint about any advertisement simply by writing to the Advertising Standards Board. The Board meets regularly to consider complaints about advertisements. Complainants and advertisers are kept informed of the process and provided with a written case report at its conclusion. The Board's role does not extend to issues about the legality or the truth and accuracy of advertising. It cannot deal with issues

3 113 about public advocacy, nor with label directions. When a complaint is upheld, the advertiser is requested to remove or amend the offending advertisement. Over its first decade of operation, advertising self-regulation the record of industry compliance with Board decisions is very high (although it is noted that often the scheduled period for which advertising is displayed is over before the Board is able to make a determination). Complaints about the television component of the Little Pinky advertisement Complaints about the television component of the Little Pinky advertisement (Reference number 214/07) were determined by the Advertising Standards Board on Tuesday, 10 July The complaints were dealt with under the category of discrimination or vilification of gender under section 2.1 of the AANA Advertiser Code of Ethics: 2.1 Advertising or Marketing Communications shall not portray people or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability or political belief. After review of the issues and advice from the advertiser (the Roads and Traffic Authority), the Board determined to dismiss the complaint. The television advertisement begins with a young male driver in a yellow car roaring off from traffic lights at speed in a cloud of smoke, to impress two young women standing nearby. The young women indicate their opinion of this behaviour to each other by by bending their little fingers (the "pinkie" fingers) derisively. Another woman is nearly run down by another driver in a red car who ignores the fact that she is on a pedestrian crossing. Across the road, an elderly woman sitting on a bench makes the "pinkie" gesture to the woman on the crossing. Another young man in a blue car swerves at speed around a corner to impress his mates in the back seat, almost losing control of the car and alarming his passengers. As he glances in his rear vision mirror to assess their reaction he sees one of his mates showing the other the "pinkie" sign. The advertisement cuts to the text: 'Speeding. No one thinks big of you'. The Advertising Standards Board reported that a sample of comments which the complainants made regarding this advertisement included the following: The underlying and official assumption of the campaign is as insulting as the gesture itself- that a man, even a young man, measures his manhood on the size of his penis. The ad. violates the code because it encourages and advocates a form of sexual denigration. This sexual denigration targets a specific age group and a specific gender; males, and only males, in our society. It encourages a form of sexual denigration that is denigrating exclusively to males. The ad. is offensive because it is reasonable to assume to a lot of men would feel uncomfortable having their genitalia used as a means of degradation. And it is reasonable to assume they would feel demeaned seeing a reference to their genitalia as a means of demeaning and reprimanding a young man. It is degrading because it suggests that the penis is a thing of shame and disgust, a thing with which we insult people. The intent of the gesture is to demean a man. Is it really the kind of

4 114 "high impact" message we want boys to be seeing, a message of leering and denigration and all about their penis. The ad. violates the code because it creates a negative stereotype of a specific age group and gender. It associates a particular way of behaving that is antisocial and irresponsible on the basis of age and gender. The ad. campaign creates a negative stereotype of young men generally, and associates them with speeding and irresponsible driving. The ad is actually designed to vilify young male drivers by portraying them as irresponsible and dangerous drivers, and then advocating sexually (sic) humiliation as an appropriate reprimand for these people, and these people only: young male drivers. It is sexist - it demeans men and embarrasses them. The advertisement is gender-biased; while statistically it is quite clear that injury is far more common in younger males (with respect to motor vehicle accidents) than other age cohorts, or by gender, young men are not the only year olds that one notices speeding every day. Should this ad be targeted at females, using a similar gender stereotype, it is unlikely that this ad would be viewed favourably by a female audience. Thus, the RTA is using a very demeaning and inappropriate form of sexuality-based reverse discrimination in order to make their point- inappropriate. Genitals of young man have nothing to do with bad driving. The add is designed to be sexist and humilating [sic] to men. The add encourages and sanctions from a government body the sexual harassment of young men with these crude, sexist and offence behaviours. This ad resorts to sexual discrimination is a number of ways. The poses that 'hoons' are exclusively male. The use of the 'pinkie' finger is commonly used to indicate that that a person in question has a small penis. In this day and age of severe psychological issues stemming from personal inadequacies and where society is actively encouraging young women to be comfortable with their bodies, it seems grossly inappropriate to identify the vulnerability of males, and exploit it in advertising. I find this as offensive because it is sexist. It portrays all of its dangerous/reckless drivers as Males even though female drivers are also responsible for reckless/dangerous driving on the roads. The accusation that MALES who break road rules have small penises is sexually discriminatory because if there were female drivers in the advertisement, the hand gestures and innuendo of the ad's final statement wouldn't apply for anatomical reasons. With youth suicide among young males in Australia at such high rates I find it alarming in the extreme that an advertising campaign of this nature propogating [sic] false sterotypes [sic] should find its way onto our screens. The Roads and Traffic Authority responded to these complaints regarding this advertisement by noting the following: The new RTA anti speeding campaign Speeding. No one thinks big of you. is designed to act as an awareness campaign to get speeding back onto the social

5 115 agenda. It adopts a new approach to increase the social unacceptability of speeding within the wider community. It is the first step in a multi-phased approach to change the attitudes and behaviours of all speeding drivers. The concept for the campaign was extensively researched, not only against the target audience (males years of age) but also across the wider community (males plus years of age and females plus years of age) in both Sydney and country areas. Over 30 percent of the focus group participants had been booked for speeding in the past three years. The response to the campaign by the focus groups was overwhelmingly positive. Most people involved in the groups knew about the Pinkie gesture. The groups recommended that the RTA proceed with the campaign because: It had the potential to change the behaviour of the target audience; It is powerful, it is different and it effectively utilizes social disapproval of poor driving behaviour by peers and the wider community; It puts the issue back in to the hands of the community; and The campaign is preventative Although the commercial has a P classification and could have been scheduled on television from 7pm, it has only been scheduled for 8.30pm plus timeslots. This was a deliberate decision. We reject the suggestion the advertisement is sexist. It is evidenced based as discussed above. We reject the suggestion the advertisement demeans young men. It does not. It does however demean certain types of behaviour. The Advertising Standards Board considered whether the advertisement breached Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics. The Advertising Standards Board considered the complainants' concerns that the advertisement demeans men in a number of ways, in particular portraying only young men as being responsible for poor and dangerous driving, and by using the 'pinkie' finger sign to insinuate that the young men have a small penis. The Advertising Standards Board noted that young people, predominantly young men, are more likely to speed or drive more dangerously. The Board accepted that it is legitimate for the campaign to focus on young men. The Board considered that this was not a depiction that was discriminatory or vilifying of young men. The Advertising Standards Board also noted the use of the 'pinkie' finger sign in the advertisement. The Board considered that most people would understand this to mean, not that the person has a small penis per se, but rather that the person is less of a man or is demonstrating behaviour that is not considered acceptable by the person using the sign. The Board considered that the use of the sign in this advertisement was consistent with the message that the driving behaviour demonstrated is not 'cool' or desirable. The sign is not demeaning to men generally. On these bases the Advertising Standards Board determined that the advertisement did not discriminate against or vilify men, or young men, and did not breach section 2.1 of the Code.

6 116 Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint. Complaints about the outdoor component of the Little Pinky advertisement Complaints about the outdoor component of the Little Pinky advertisement (Reference number 123/08) were determined by the Advertising Standards Board on Wednesday, 11 June Again, the complaints were dealt with under the category of discrimination or vilification of gender under section 2.1 of the AANA Advertiser Code of Ethics: 2.1 Advertising or Marketing Communications shall not portray people or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability or political belief. After review of the issues and advice from the advertiser (the Roads and Traffic Authority), the Board determined to dismiss the complaint. The outdoor advertisement consists of a head shot of young woman, her hair is being swept in one direction, she is looking toward her left. She is holding up her right hand with only pinkie finger extended and bent. The text reads: 'Speeding. No one thinks big of you.' This advertisement was run on signage at bus stops, billboards, and on busbacks. The Advertising Standards Board reported that a comments which the complainants made regarding this advertisement included the following: Presumed allusion to male genitals as a means of humiliation is discriminatory (any comparative reference to female body parts would not be tolerated in advertising or elsewhere). References of this sort are potentially inflammatory in real life situations, so why should they be promoted through advertising? Implication that male drivers are the only drivers who break speed limits is wrong. In the end, this deliberately provocative advertisement could cause more problems than it solves. The Roads and Traffic Authority responded to these complaints regarding this advertisement by noting the following: Speeding is the biggest road safety problem in Australia. In NSW alone from 2002 to 2006 around 200 people each year were killed in road crashes where speeding was involved. This represents about 40 per cent of the annual road toll and this proportion has changed very little over the past decade. Speeding is predominately a male problem with 85 percent of drivers involved in fatal speeding crashes being men. Of all speeding drivers involved in those fatal crashes between 2002 and 2006, 35 percent were aged years of age but that age group only account for 15 per cent of licenced drivers.

7 117 The provisional crash statistics for the year 2007 show a significant reduction in speed related fatalities. In 2007, 140 people were killed in speeding crashes compared to 197 in Importantly there was a significant reduction in speed related fatalities in the year old age group, they dropped from 75 fatalities in 2006 to 40 fatalities in The current RTA anti speeding television campaign Speeding. No one thinks big of you. Was launched on 24 June It adopted a new approach to increase the social unacceptability of speeding within the wider community. It is the first step in a multi-phased approach to change the attitudes and behaviours of all speeding drivers. The outdoor component of the campaign was introduced in September The concept for the campaign was extensively researched, not only against the target audience (males years of age) but also across the wider community (males plus years of age and females plus years of age) in both Sydney and country areas. More than 30 percent of the focus group participants had been booked for speeding in the past three years. The response to the campaign by the focus groups was overwhelmingly positive. Most people involved in the groups knew about the Pinkie gesture. The groups recommended that the RTA proceed with the campaign because: It had the potential to change the behaviour of the target audience; It is powerful, it is different and it effectively utilizes social disapproval of poor driving behaviour by peers and the wider community; It puts the issue back in to the hands of the community; and The campaign is preventative Tracking of the campaign supports the formative research undertaken in developing the campaign. The latest evaluation undertaken in December 2007 among year old males report the campaign to be believable (78%) and convincing (67%) with 74% of respondents confirming the campaign will encourage young drivers to obey the speed limit. The anti speeding message is not only becoming more salient with the target audience (92% ), a deeper understanding of the subtleties of the campaign messages are growing with 81% reporting it is undermining the perceived benefits of speeding - making it uncool. The campaign was developed by Clemenger BBDO advertising agency. The outdoor advertisement shows a girl doing the Pinkie gesture with the tagline Speeding. No one thinks big of you. As the campaign has evolved the interpretation of the Pinkie gesture is more about speeding. We reject the suggestion the advertisement is discriminatory and humiliates men. It does however discriminates against certain types of behaviour but no male image is featured in the outdoor advertisement.

8 118 We reject the suggestion the advertisement is inflammatory. The gesture is never directed at the driver, there is no confrontational elements incorporated into the advertising at all. We reject the suggestion the advertisement is sexist. It is evidenced based as discussed above. We reject the suggestion the advertisement will cause more problems than it solves. Evidence as discussed above indicates otherwise. The Advertising Standards Board considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics. The Advertising Standards Board considered the complainants' concerns that the advertisement demeans men by using the 'pinkie' finger sign to insinuate that men have a small penis. The Advertising Standards Board also noted that they had considered the television version of this advertisement in They considered that the same issues applied to the billboard advertisement. The Advertising Standards Board then noted that young people, predominantly young men, are more likely to speed or drive more dangerously. The Board accepted that it is legitimate for the campaign to focus on young men. The Board considered that this was not a depiction that was discriminatory or vilifying of young men. The Advertising Standards Board also noted the use of the 'pinkie' finger sign in the advertisement. The Board considered that most people would understand this to mean, not that the person has a small penis per se, but rather that the person is less of a man or is demonstrating behaviour that is not considered acceptable by the person using the sign. The Board considered that the use of the sign in this advertisement was consistent with the message that the driving behaviour demonstrated is not 'cool' or desirable. The sign is not demeaning to men generally. On these bases, the Advertising Standards Board determined that the advertisement did not discriminate against or vilify men, or young men, and did not breach section 2.1 of the Code. Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint. Complaints about other components of the Little Pinky advertisement As noted earlier, it appears that the cinema component (the Slowdown Notes advertisement) of the Speeding. No one thinks big of you campaign has not been the subject of formal complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau. Similarly, it appears that the internet component (the Hectic advertisement) of the Speeding. No one thinks big of you campaign has not been the subject of formal complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau.

9 119 Concluding comments The Speeding. No one thinks big of you campaign has withstood formal complaints, and is being seen as one of the most successful anti-speeding campaigns in New South Wales. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal MLC, Minister for Roads, has noted a new survey which reveals that the anti-speeding message in the Speeding. No one thinks big of you campaign has hit home and is having an effect on driver attitudes with most people surveyed believing that the campaign increases community awareness about speeding and indicating that they understand the campaign s clear anti-speeding message. The Minister said: Wiggling your pinkie has cut through to that crucial age group of young drivers they re using it as a way to slow their mates down and stop them acting recklessly on our roads. This campaign has got the community and young people talking and thinking about speeding that s the first crucial step in getting young drivers to slow down. A wiggling pinkie now has another meaning slow down and stop acting recklessly on our roads because stupid driving behaviour can cost your life in the blink of an eye. This campaign is about saving lives not pride. If it dents a few egos but helps save a life, then it s worth it. He continued: Perhaps most revealing was that 61 per cent of young males surveyed believed the campaign had the power to make them think about their own driving behaviour. The campaign has prompted consideration and discussion of the issue of speeding among 56 per cent of the general population and among 61 per cent of young males. In summary, the majority of people surveyed said the campaign was interesting yet believable, realistic and convincing, and it was entertaining without being inappropriate. (Roozendaal, 2007, p.1) The Minister referred to a survey commissioned by the RTA s NSW Centre for Road Safety, which found: 53% of the general population and 53% of young males (17-25 years) said that they would be more likely to comment on someone s driving as a result of seeing the Pinkie campaign. 64% of the general population, and 63% of young male drivers, believed the campaign to have some effect in encouraging young male drivers to obey the speed limit. 74% of the general population and 75% of young males revealed strong recognition of the anti-speeding message, aimed at making speeding socially unacceptable and at undermining the perceived pay off for speeding. 60% of the general population and 59% of young males recognised the meaning behind the message, that speeding is not cool, does not impress, or is stupid. References Australian Association of National Advertisers (2002). AANA Code of Ethics. Sydney, NSW: Australian Association of National Advertisers. Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries. (2004). Review of Motor Vehicle Advertising Code of Practice.

10 120 Harker, D. (2003). Towards effective advertising self-regulation in Australia: The seven components. Journal of Marketing Communications, 9, Roozendaal, Hon. E. (2007). Little Pinkie a big anti-speeding success. Media release, 15 October Ian Faulks & Julia Irwin Ian Faulks is a partner in the transportation consultancy, Safety and Policy Analysis International and an Honorary Associate of the Department of Psychology, Macquarie University. Prior to working as the Director, Staysafe Committee in the New South Wales parliament, , he was a senior behavioural scientist and Leader, Driver Test Development, with the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority, where he worked on road safety and driver licensing issues. Julia Irwin is a lecturer in learning and decision making in the Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, where she manages driving simulator laboratories and conducts research into risk, safety and human factors issues.